Why is this controversial?

Bloomberg analyzes some important cases for this year’s Supremes.

They consistenly treat “adhering to the written law” as far far far far ultra ultra right fascist, and treat “ignoring written law” as moderate and centrist.

In ANY OTHER CONTEXT, following the written law would be the automatic default, and ignoring the written law would be criminal. Terms like left and right and moderate wouldn’t enter our minds at all.

In every business relationship, written contracts determine behavior. Nobody would consider breaking a rental contract or breaking a royalty agreement to be centrist or moderate. Nobody would consider speeding or bank robbery or burglary to be centrist or moderate.

The 1787 constitution is the ONLY EXCEPTION to this perfectly normal and ordinary viewpoint. The original crime was Marbury vs Madison in 1803. The Supremes ripped up the written constitution and said explicitly: FROM NOW ON WE ARE THE LAW. WHAT WE THINK AT THE CURRENT MOMENT IS THE ENTIRE CONSTITUTION.

Congress never argued the point, and the executive never argued the point, because both branches were relieved to be free from the burden of making decisions.

The majority on the current court is trying to reduce its own power, trying to restore at least a few lines of the written document. Repeatedly the current court tells Congress to get off its ass and start working. So far Congress hasn’t listened.